Why Oh Why Can't I Spot The Lie?

Brad DeLong has praise for the Fred Kaplan column we pecked at earlier. From the Prof:

Why Oh Why Are We Ruled by This Liar?

Fred Kaplan catches a Bush lie that I missed. Far from being opposed to two-power talks in Korea, the other participants in the six-power talks want us to do so:

And excerpting Fred Kaplan, we get this:

... Kerry called for opening bilateral talks with North Korea to solve the problem.

President Bush said such talks would be a "big mistake." If we sat down one-on-one, he said, North Korea would walk out of the six-power talks, which also involve Japan, South Korea, Russia, and China. Bilaterals will accomplish nothing. Kerry replied that just because Bush says they'll accomplish nothing doesn't mean they will.

Point for Kerry. But it would have been a more solid point had Kerry noted that all the other participants in those six-power talks want the United States to have bilateral talks with North Korea.

Well. Questions for Mr. Kaplan - is the phrase "free-rider" relevant in this context? Is it possible that some of the Feckless Five would prefer that the US do the heavy lifting with North Korea while they keep their hands clean and present themselves as intermediaries between a Seriously Misunderstood North Korea and the Oppressive United States?

Perhaps Kerry could have swept the board by making a similarly solid point on Iraq. Should Kerry have noted that, even after he convenes his Miracle Summit, none of the European nations he cajoles will be interested in providing new troops to Iraq?

In other news, Fred Kaplan reported that the other barnyard animals would prefer to let the Little Red Hen do all the work, while they dressed for dinner.

Now, I would not expect the President to make this point about China and our reluctant allies in this public forum; denigrating our allies seems tp be John Kerry's specialty. But North Korea would prefer, for obvious reasons, to deal with its neighbors bilaterally. Perhaps the President simply has the opinion that North Korea would walk away from the Six Nations talks if formal bilateral talks with the US were available. Fred Kaplan's opinion may differ; however, after his amusing insight into the Iranian situation as noted below, my guess is that he wrote this article rather hurriedly and did not have time to give it his best thinking.

So, my question for the Prof: I am peering at the debate transcript. I can find Bush suggesting that the Six Nation talks are in the interests of the United States. And he certainly expressed his opinion that the Six Nations talks would "unwind" if we held bilateral talks with North Korea. But where did he suggest that, quoting your post, the other five nations were "opposed to two-power talks in Korea"? What was the "lie"?

I have what seem to be the relevant debate excerpts below, as well as an excerpt from the WaPo article cited earlier.

LEHRER: New question, Mr. President. Do you believe that diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the nuclear problems with North Korea and Iran? Take them in any order you would like.

BUSH: North Korea, first, I do. Let me say -- I certainly hope so. Before I was sworn in, the policy of this government was to have bilateral negotiations with North Korea.

And we signed an agreement with North Korea that my administration found out that was not being honored by the North Koreans.

And so I decided that a better way to approach the issue was to get other nations involved, just besides us. And in Crawford, Texas, Jiang Zemin and I agreed that the nuclear-weapons-free peninsula, Korean Peninsula, was in his interest and our interest and the world's interest.

And so we began a new dialogue with North Korea, one that included not only the United States, but now China. And China's a got a lot of influence over North Korea, some ways more than we do.

As well, we included South Korea, Japan and Russia. So now there are five voices speaking to Kim Jong Il, not just one.

And so if Kim Jong Il decides again to not honor an agreement, he's not only doing injustice to America, he'd be doing injustice to China, as well.

BUSH: And I think this will work. It's not going to work if we open up a dialogue with Kim Jong Il. He wants to unravel the six- party talks, or the five-nation coalition that's sending him a clear message.

On Iran, I hope we can do the same thing, continue to work with the world to convince the Iranian mullahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions.

We worked very closely with the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Great Britain, who have been the folks delivering the message to the mullahs that if you expect to be part of the world of nations, get rid of your nuclear programs.

The IAEA is involved. There's a special protocol recently been passed that allows for inspections.

I hope we can do it. And we've got a good strategy.

LEHRER: Senator Kerry, 90 seconds.

KERRY: With respect to Iran, the British, French, and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort without the United States, regrettably, to begin to try to move to curb the nuclear possibilities in Iran. I believe we could have done better.

I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing.

With respect to North Korea, the real story: We had inspectors and television cameras in the nuclear reactor in North Korea. Secretary Bill Perry negotiated that under President Clinton. And we knew where the fuel rods were. And we knew the limits on their nuclear power.

Colin Powell, our secretary of state, announced one day that we were going to continue the dialog of working with the North Koreans. The president reversed it publicly while the president of South Korea was here.

KERRY: And the president of South Korea went back to South Korea bewildered and embarrassed because it went against his policy. And for two years, this administration didn't talk at all to North Korea.

While they didn't talk at all, the fuel rods came out, the inspectors were kicked out, the television cameras were kicked out. And today, there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea.

That happened on this president's watch.

Now, that, I think, is one of the most serious, sort of, reversals or mixed messages that you could possibly send.

LEHRER: I want to make sure -- yes, sir -- but in this one minute, I want to make sure that we understand -- the people watching understand the differences between the two of you on this.

You want to continue the multinational talks, correct?

BUSH: Right.

LEHRER: And you're willing to do it...

KERRY: Both. I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table.

LEHRER: And you're opposed to that. Right?

BUSH: The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind. That's exactly what Kim Jong Il wants. And by the way, the breach on the agreement was not through plutonium. The breach on the agreement is highly enriched uranium. That's what we caught him doing. That's where he was breaking the agreement.

END EXCERPT

This article is vaguely supportive as well: "Romberg: A 'Reasonable Shot' a U.S.-North Korea Deal Will Emerge".

The WaPo has this:

The search for common ground to date has left the two key parties -- the United States and North Korea -- drifting further and further apart. At the same time, North Korea seems to be enjoying a measure of success in its strategy of dividing the five nations seeking its disarmament, observers have said.

Chinese authorities, for instance, expressed new doubts about the U.S. stance that North Korea possesses a uranium enrichment program in addition to its admitted program to enrich plutonium for use in nuclear weapons. The U.S. government has insisted that North Korea's public admission of the existence of the uranium program is key to any agreement.

Alarmed that Kim is advancing with his nuclear ambitions while the talks have stalled, the closest U.S. allies in Asia -- Japan and South Korea -- have also moved independently to engage the government in Pyongyang in bilateral talks, an approach the Bush administration has rejected.

Comments

[Uncle Bill]

I find it quite odd that the left objects to the multilateral approach to the North Korean problem.

For some inscrutable reason they also object to the unilateral approach we took to the Iraq problem.

They object when we intervene and object when we don't intervene and, I expect, they would object it we intervened before we didn't intervene or the reverse for that matter.

Do you suppose that the loudest voices of the left simply object to the existance of all those who are not 'them'?

BTW: Who else do we know that objects to the existance of all those who are not 'them'?

[Russ Goble]

And let's not forget what you mean by "heavy lifting." In the case of North Korea, "heavy lifting" means bribing them NOT to be bad neighbors and hope to God they keep their word of compliance, like they failed to do in the Carter/Albright fiasco. As usual, Kerry & the MSM's debate perameters are centered in a fantasy world.

[WildMonk]

I think a lot of voters grow extraordinarily weary of the "Bush Lied" idea that the Dem partisans love to throw around. For my part, I am certainly sick of the shallow, spiteful whining that passes for Democratic rhetoric these days.

Bush made a statement that he believed the multilateral talks were likely to be most effective. Their position regarding unilateral talks might be interesting to discuss but ultimately has nothing to do with the truth of Bush's assertion.

"Why Oh Why Are We Listening to these Hacks?"

[Uncle Bill]

Having scrolled down to your "Iraq And North Korea" post, I note:

"So now Kerry carps that Bush wasn't multilateral with Iraq, and is multilateral on North Korea. Compelling."

Silly me. The oddness of it all has also occurred to others. :-)

Still I think the problem is not merely with Kerry but rather with the majority of the noisy left.

[abb1]

I find it quite odd that the left objects to the multilateral approach to the North Korean problem.

Multilateral approach to the North Korean problem is fine, no one objects.

We also need to talk to them directly and, hopefully, give them them security assurances (a treaty or non-aggression pact) that they ask for.

Anything you find odd about this?

Thanks.

[Dan]

I suppose one could argue that Kerry believes that the multilateral approach would have been more effective in Iraq but negotiations with North Korea will only succeed if they are bilateral.

The problem though is Kerry's credibility. He was all for unilateral action on the part of the US in Iraq when a Democrat was president. His foriegn policy seems to be nothing more than insisting no matter what approach the Bush administration took in any situation, it was wrong.

[Cecil Turner]

"Why Oh Why Can't I Spot The Lie?"

You sure must not be looking very hard, because it leaps right out: "While Bush went to war against Saddam Hussein [. . .] North Korea [. . .] started to develop real nuclear weapons." [emphasis added]

(Oh, you meant a Bush lie? Uh, never mind.)

[abb1]

I think it's quite accurate, unless you're really into nitpicking:

A North Korean government spokesman announced Friday that it was "successfully reprocessing more than 8,000 spent fuel rods at the final phase ... after resuming our nuclear activities from December last year [that's December 2002]," the state news agency KCNA reported.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/04/18/nkorea.fuelrods/

And that's, basically, all we know for sure. Everything else is a pure speculation. So, IOW, they resumed their nuclear activities in December 2002, which is pretty much the time Bush went to war against Saddam Hussein. Where's the lie here?

[TM]

From Mr. Turner:

"...started to develop real nuclear weapons"

From the ever-credulous abb1:

"So, IOW, they resumed their nuclear activities in December 2002.."

Hmm, started, resumed, what's the difference?

A little history here; a mention of the CIA estimate here. And lots of great declassified stuff from the National Security Archive.

The official CIA speculation is that the North Koreans developed enough plutonium for one or two bombs and weaponized them in the early 90's.

Pure speculation, of course.

[Cecil Turner]

Here's another good overview (which is holding up very well, considering it was written as the crisis was unfolding). It's also worth pointing out that the DPRK has been clamoring for bilateral talks for years, and giving it to them amounts to a major concession. Rewarding bad behavior is an issue, even if the subsequent talks were productive (and if anything, I think the President's skepticism on that point is too mild).

[abb1]

Hey, that was a 2 minute answer, not a dissertation. NK staring processing their plutonium rods (that were sealed and monitored by the IAEA before the Bushies screwed it up) coincided with the Bushies going to war against Iraq. Accurate enough statement for a 2-minute ad-hoc response, don't you think?

[Jim Thomason]

Yes, the ever-credulous "Anybody But Bush" folks will accept what a North Korean government official says regarding their weapons programs as the gospel truth. The only thing that we "know for sure" is what the North Koreans tell us. "Everything else is pure speculation."

The North Koreans have such a great track record of truth telling, and of course they have no motive to lie either. Pathetic as always.

[Bostonian]

Abb1, I don't know about the timing of that, but there are many of us who think that the screwup was letting NK have nukes in the first place.

I mean, you have a megalomanical dictator and you give him stuff he can turn into nuclear weapons, so that from now until doomsday you have to watch him like a hawk. Is that really smart?

[Jim Thomason]

We went to war with Iraq in December 2002?

Maybe it isn't that ABB1 is completely clueless, maybe he really is from an alternate reality.

[MaDr]

I've always loved the Left's selective memory along with their "selection" of supporting documetation. We could throw all that out and ask one question - how effective have previous bilateral talks been with NK? Any reasonable person would have to admit - not very.
So yes, let's show our inflexibility and keep following a failed process. I'm not going to trouble myself with trying to convince the loons by Googling for old articles, but I certainly don't remember until very recently a call from the left for multi-lateral talks as well as bilateral. It's been all bilateral! The defense that "we never said multi-lateral talks couldn't proceed along with bilateral ones" is Ra'th'er disingenious. Worse it's so childish it gives me a "Please Don't Eat the Daisies" moment.

[Cosmo]

abb1:

1. As other have pointed out, your timeline is off. No only did North Korea make its announcement five months before the invasion of Iraq, but why would the Clinton administration have bothered to negotiate the Agreed Framework (bribe) with North Korea way back in 1994, if not to keep it's latent/incipient/actual nuclear program mothballed?

How confident should we be in yet another agreement, given North Korea's track record of broken promises and cheating?

2. Also, you write: "Anything you find odd about this?" (persuing bi-lateral and multi-lateral talks)

Participation in bi-lateral talks -- especially with all the unreciprocated goodies you're prepared to hand out -- leaves very little incentive to take multi-lateral talks seriously. China, Japan and South Korea have little to offer, do not present a threat to North Korea and would rather we do the dirty work, anyway. Additonally, bi-lateral talks have been a major NK objective and, as such, presents the U.S. with a significant bargaining chip which should not be conceded without similarly important concessions in return.

[abb1]

Abb1, I don't know about the timing of that, but there are many of us who think that the screwup was letting NK have nukes in the first place.

Bostonian,
I don't know what you mean by letting NK have nukes. As (I hope) you know, NK is not a county in the US, but a sovereign state. The US government has no power over sovereign states because they are, well, sovereign. With sovereign states you use diplomacy and do the best you can. And that's what the Clinton's team did quite skillfully. Then, of course, the barbarians came and screwed everything up.

And as far as megalomanical lunatics are concerned - I think we have a parity with NK now in this respect.

[satan]

Yes, abb1 is right.

Hey, the US is screwing up my business. How is a guy going to make his quota in lost souls if everyone is taking Kim's nukes away.

The way the US is going with negociation business, a nuclear war ain't goin' ta happen.

But you got one thing wrong, abb1. Kim is way ahead on my list. But Bush is pretty low on the list.

Here are Kim's good points
- starved to death millions of his people
- runs great concentration camps, no one ever gets
out
- has a generational under class.
- decendants of people who were capitalists
in the 40s are doomed to be in the camps
until they and all their descendants all
die off.
- has a great program of WMD and has done extensive
testing. I like the test where he kied an entire
family and kids.
- regularly kidnaps children form other countries
- managed to kill off most of the south korean
cabinet
- regularly manages to blow up south korean
airliners
- has his one pleasure squad of the choicest young
korean women chosen from the populace.
- has great descendants, they end up being even
crazier than Kim

On the other hand Bush got rid of one of my best guys, Saddam. I had planned on a nice widespread nuclear war in the ME. It could have net me a cool 40 million souls. But now that plan is bust.

[Cosmo]

abb writes: "And as far as megalomanical lunatics are concerned - I think we have a parity with NK now in this respect."

Just great. A dictator-for-life presiding over the starving populace of world's premier economic basket case is given parity with the elected leader of one of history's most successful societies.

This sort of thing makes it hard to take the rest of what you have to say seriously. And you wonder why so many of us want to keep the keys to the car and the liquor cabinet away from the Left.

[Russell Wardlow]

Abb1,

My dear little idiot, run along now. Grownups are talking.

[abb1]

Just great. A dictator-for-life presiding over the starving populace of world's premier economic basket case is given parity with the elected leader of one of history's most successful societies.

Well, first of all he was not elected. And second, I am much more worried about a deranged megalomanic with 10,000 nuclear weapons than about deranged megalomanic with a half dozen of them.

Now,
You're nitpicking a 2-minute impromptu response.
And you aren't even nitpicking well:

As other have pointed out, your timeline is off.

No, it's not. He said (according to Cecil) "while Bush went to war against Saddam Hussein". Amassing troops in Kuwait is a part of going to war. There is no doubt that from September 2002 on the Bushies have been preoccupied with Iraq above everything else, and this is the point Mr. Kerry is making. Quite correctly.

Participation in bi-lateral talks ... etc.

All the NK want from the US is a non-agression treaty. Neither China nor Japan can give them any guarantee that the US is not going to attack them. As long as they don't have a treaty they'll be baking nukes as fast as they can. And anyone in their position would be doing exactly the same.

The longer you postpone signing this treaty the more nukes they'll have and the better their bargaining position will be.

That's all there is to it.

Cheers.

[Dave]

Words mean what abb1 wants them to mean, remember? "Elected" can only mean "won the popular vote", because the electoral college doesn't matter. Election law is a convenience, nothing more. We can trust the word of genocidal dictators who keep all the food in their country for their army much more than we can the word of any Rethuglican, remember?

[Dave]

</leftist mindset>

[Cecil Turner]

"There is no doubt that from September 2002 on the Bushies . . ."

If the DPRK had in fact restarted its nuke program in late 2002, you might have a point. But that interpretation is ludicrous. They didn't start the program after talks broke down, they admitted having a secret program after being called on it:

This is but the latest step in a simmering crisis that began with the admission by North Korea, after being confronted with hard evidence by Assistant Secretary Kelly in October 2002, that it has been pursuing in secret a nuclear weapons program in violation of the Agreed Framework of 1994 . . .

[abb1]

"Elected" can only mean "won the popular vote", because the electoral college doesn't matter.

Well, Dave, if "elected" can mean anything you want it to, then who's to say Kim wasn't elected? I am sure they had some kind of vote there. Saddam was "elected" too, btw, by 99.9% of the Iraqis.

So, why don't we use "elected" as "chosen by a majority (or at least plurality) in a free election"? Do you mind?

[buzz]

"Well, Dave, if "elected" can mean anything you want it to, then who's to say Kim wasn't elected?".
I think the point is that abb1 has decided that elected can mean anything you want, and that Dave has pointed out that in this country, it doesnt. You MUST win the electorial college. Nothing else matters.
"So, why don't we use "elected" as "chosen by a majority (or at least plurality) in a free election"? Do you mind?"
I dont think anyone really minds. If abb1 would like to sway the congress and the people of the United States to put thru a admentment to the constitution changing the procedure of the general presidential election to reflect only the popular vote, then knock yourself out.
Until that happens, this is a rather silly argument for abb1 to present. The unkind person might call it stupid. But abb1 already knew that. Right?

[abb1]

"pursuing in secret a nuclear weapons program" (which is what pretty much every country does) and "developing real nuclear weapons" are two different things.

[abb1]

rather silly argument for abb1 to present

Fine, but then to call Kim "unelected" is a silly argument also. I am sure he was also "elected" by whatever electorial college rules or whatever rules they have in NK. I don't really know how they elect their leaders in NK, but in the USSR they were elected by the 15-member politburo. That was their meaning of the word "elected" and nothing else mattered.

So, you successfuly obfuscated the meaning of the word "elected" and now both Bush and Kim should be considered "elected". If that's what you want, fine.

[buzz]

I dont think I understand your thought rational. Voting at the point of a gun is considerably different than the rules the govern the electorial process in the united states. I honestly dont see how any rational person can compare the two. "So, you successfuly obfuscated the meaning of the word "elected" and now both Bush and Kim should be considered "elected". If that's what you want, fine." I dont see where anyone other than yourself has "obfuscated" the meaning of the word elected. An election where a citizen goes into a voting booth and can vote secretly is not in the same ballpark, city, state, country, or planet, as a "election" where a citizen is allowed to "vote" for whoever the leader of that particular country tells him to vote for on pain of death. Anyone who makes such a comparison is either a idiot, or just looking to argue and doesnt actually believe this either. Which one are you?

[Brian]

First, stop with this nonsense that Kerry intends to insult our allies every chance he gets. Not only is that not true, you have to stretch things in order to find some alleged insults. It's a tired, senseless point. Bringing up again and again doesn't do anyone any good.

Second, it appears Brad DeLong made an error. I don't see any support for the notion that the other nations were opposed to bilateral talks.

[Birkel]

abb1,

I guess you're the type of person who believed Baghdad Bob. I discern this because you seem to believe what the N.Koreans said about their intentions and their programs.

The Americans are being fought back into Kuwait.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
North Korea is pursuing a nuclear power program but has no designs on weapons.
Ignore the tanks on that street with the crossed swords.
We have never gone to war with Eastasia.
North Korea began cheating on its deal in 2002 but were telling the truth before that.

All right. I now understand. Thanks for clarifying.

Don't treat me like Montel Williams.

[abb1]

Birkel,
let me repeat this just for you: in December 2002 NK started processing their plutonium rods (that were sealed and monitored by IAEA before) and started developing nukes from that plutonium. In January 2003 NK quit the NPT altogether. That was exactly the time when the Bushies were amassing troops in Kuwait, building their 'case' for invading Iraq and paid no attention to NK whatsoever.

This is what Mr. Kerry said.

Is there something here you disagree with or don't understand? Let me know.

Thanks.

[capt joe]

Wow, I must have missed the concentration camps in the US where millions of people are being worked to death. I also missed all those elements of the police state that ABB1 seems to see everywhere.

Abb1, everyones favorite paranoid zeropean.

[Cecil Turner]

"in December 2002 NK [. . .] started developing nukes from that plutonium."

Yep. But they were already developing nukes from their highly enriched uranium program . . . which was the cause of the breakdown in the first place. Your position appears to be "No Fat Men--only Little Boys" which isn't terribly compelling.

"In January 2003 NK quit the NPT altogether."

Which they'd been cheating on for at least a decade. Again, not terribly compelling.

[abb1]

But they were already developing nukes from their highly enriched uranium program.

Prove it. They were a part of the NPT. They were subject to inspections. If they were suspected of developing nukes, why weren't the suspected sites inspected? Because they weren't. They might've had a lab or something, but you have no proof whatsoever that they were developing nukes. You're just parroting baseless lies and propaganda.

[capt joe]

abb1 is just parroting baseless lies and propaganda.

He has no proof whatsoever of his statements.

poor abb1, he is naive enough to believe that Kim Il Sung is just some poor oppressed guy from the evil US of A.

If abb1 didn't exist, we would have to invent him. ;)

[Cecil Turner]

"You're just parroting baseless lies and propaganda."

Hmm. Okay. But so is the State Department:

During those talks, Assistant Secretary James A. Kelly and his delegation advised the North Koreans that we had recently acquired information that indicates that North Korea has a program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons in violation of the Agreed Framework and other agreements. North Korean officials acknowledged that they have such a program.

The Federation of American Scientists says the same thing:

Tensions between the United States and North Korea have been running especially high since, in early October of 2002, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly informed North Korean officials that the United States was aware that North Korea had a program underway to enrich uranium for use in nuclear weapons. Initially North Korea denied this, but later confirmed the veracity of the US claim. In confirming that they had an active nuclear weapons program, they also declared the Agreed Framework nullified.

And the Center for Defense Information is even less charitable:

Shortly after signing the agreement, North Korea began seeking nuclear weapons fuel through uranium enrichment. In the late 1990s, the United States began to receive scattered intelligence reports revealing a North Korean uranium enrichment program.

I'm sure they're all wrong, though. After all, we have Kim's word on it!

[abb1]

Well, of course they could be lying, because this is all sourced on the word of one guy: Kelly. Lying US government officials is a very common spectacle.

But more to the point, once again: having a program to enrich uranium is not the same as building nuclear weapons. OK? Program to enrich uranium could be anything, it could be a guy reading a book, for all you know.

[Hrubec]

Did I "misunderestimate" Mr. Bush on this point during the debate? Sounded to me almost like he was saying the US should sit silently on the sidelines while our great friend and trusted ally ...um, CHINA(!!!!)...takes care of business for us. And did I also misread my newspapers that report the 6 Nation talks are basically dead in the water at the moment?

Guess it's no concern of ours. I'm sure China will handle it all very well, putting US security at the top of its agenda.

And damn that Kerry for suggesting we have multiple approaches to a complex problem. What is wrong with this guy? Doesn't he understand all you need is a plain speakin' moron who stays the course and speaks to God and works hard and never ever changes his mind about anything??? I mean, it has worked great the past 4 years with N. Korea. Their nucular program hasn't advanced at all the past 4 years, right? Oh, and did I mention? The world is safer without Saddam...Now watch this drive.

[Hrubec]

Did I "misunderestimate" Mr. Bush on this point during the debate? Sounded to me almost like he was saying the US should sit silently on the sidelines while our great friend and trusted ally ...um, CHINA(!!!!)...takes care of business for us. And did I also misread my newspapers that report the 6 Nation talks are basically dead in the water at the moment?

Guess it's no concern of ours. I'm sure China will handle it all very well, putting US security at the top of its agenda.

And damn that Kerry for suggesting we have multiple approaches to a complex problem. What is wrong with this guy? Doesn't he understand all you need is a plain speakin' moron who stays the course and speaks to God and works hard and never ever changes his mind about anything??? I mean, it has worked great the past 4 years with N. Korea. Their nucular program hasn't advanced at all the past 4 years, right? Oh, and did I mention? The world is safer without Saddam...Now watch this drive.

[Cecil Turner]

"And damn that Kerry for suggesting we have multiple approaches to a complex problem."

I only see one "approach" and its historical record is not reassuring:

Ever since I assumed my present office my main purpose has been to work for the pacification of Europe, for the removal of those suspicions and those animosities which have so long poisoned the air. The path which leads to appeasement is long and bristles with obstacles. The question of Czechoslovakia is the latest and perhaps the most dangerous. Now that we have got past it, I feel that it may be possible to make further progress along the road to sanity.

[Cecil Turner]

"Well, of course they could be lying, because this is all sourced on the word of one guy: Kelly."

Well, Kelly must be pretty influential, cuz he's got Sy Hersh (and the CIA) singin' the same tune:

In 1997, according to the C.I.A. report, Pakistan began paying for missile systems from North Korea in part by sharing its nuclear-weapons secrets. According to the report, Pakistan sent prototypes of high-speed centrifuge machines to North Korea. And sometime in 2001 North Korean scientists began to enrich uranium in significant quantities. Pakistan also provided data on how to build and test a uranium-triggered nuclear weapon, the C.I.A. report said . . .

"In the past decade, American intelligence tracked at least thirteen visits to North Korea made by A. Q. Khan . . . "

[Mick]

"Well, Kelly must be pretty influential, cuz he's got Sy Hersh (and the CIA) singin' the same tune

You're using Hersh as a source??
And it truly feels like we landed in an alternate universe when the moonbats start using the veracity of American intelligence in their arguments!